Addressing The Fake Vaping Media Stories

Sensational Headlines From Unchecked Science

Imagine waking up to headlines screaming about a “vaping horror” – claiming that vaping is as dangerous as, or even worse than, smoking. Recently, several news outlets ran alarming stories warning.

The Mirror

"Vaping horror as first ever study reveals deadly side effects - heart disease, organ failure, dementia"

• Vaping horror as first-ever study reveals deadly side effects (Mirror, 23 Feb)
• Vaping horror as first-ever study reveals deadly side effects (Manchester Evening News, 23 Feb)
• Vaping ‘more dangerous than smoking’, bombshell study reveals (Mail, 24 Feb)

These frightening claims came from an unpublished research study led by Dr. Maxime Boidin of Manchester Metropolitan University. The catch? That study hasn’t even been published or peer-reviewed yet. In other words, its data and conclusions have not been vetted by the scientific community. Despite this, the Daily Mirror and other media (from tabloids to major websites) rushed to publicize its dramatic findings. The result was a wave of scary stories spreading through the press based on very preliminary science.

It’s easy to see why such headlines grab attention “vaping causes organ failure” is a shocking idea. But basing bold public claims on a study that no other scientists have seen or evaluated is a recipe for misinformation. In this case, the study was small (only 20 vapers were tested, alongside 20 smokers and 20 non-smokers) – far too few people to support sweeping statements about health risks. The researchers’ dramatic quotes like “the dangers for someone who keeps vaping are no different from smokers” made for eye-catching copy. However, without the checks and balances of peer review, there’s no way to know if the research methods were reliable or if the authors might be jumping to unjustified conclusions.

Why Releasing a Study Before Peer Review Is Risky

Dr. Maxmie Boidin Posing For Photo's With The Mirror

In science, peer review is a critical safeguard. It’s the process where other experts scrutinize a study before it’s published in a journal – looking for flaws, checking if the conclusions really match the data, and ensuring the research meets proper standards. If a study hasn’t gone through this process, it could easily contain errors or biased interpretations that no one has caught. That’s why publishing sensational claims before peer review is risky and often frowned upon.

In the case of Dr. Boidin’s vaping study, the research wasn’t published or publicly released at all – it appears the findings were shared directly with media outlets instead. This approach is sometimes dubbed “science by press release.” It circumvents the normal scientific checks and goes straight to the public with unverified results. The danger is that mistakes or overstatements in the research go uncorrected, and the public ends up misled.

"This is unpublished research, and so independent scientists have not yet scrutinised the methods and the results. Peer review is a crucial part of the scientific process, and it is a major concern that these findings are being widely disseminated without this scrutiny."

Experts Cry Foul Over “Irresponsible” Claims

The premature media splash around this unpublished study has drawn sharp criticism from public health experts. Clive Bates, a veteran tobacco harm reduction advocate, wrote to Dr. Boidin, warning that the research team was generating “irresponsible publicity based on false interpretations of unpublished data.”

Clive Bates’ open letter to Dr. Maxime Boidin

Similarly, Dr. Michael Siegel, a public health professor with over 30 years in tobacco research, labeled the study “fatally flawed” and criticized the decision to share its conclusions with tabloids before peer review.

"If this study is eventually published – and no reputable journal would do so – it will be too late to reverse these headlines."

Vaping vs. Smoking: Getting the Risk Difference Right

Let’s be clear: cigarette smoking is extremely harmful. It’s a leading cause of lung cancer, heart disease, and many other illnesses. Vaping is not harmless, but it avoids the combustion that creates the thousands of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke.

Numerous studies and reviews have found that while vaping has some health effects, it is significantly less dangerous than smoking. For example, an independent expert review for Public Health England estimated that e-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes.

• Public Health England: Vaping in England (2020)
• Royal College of Physicians: E-Cigarettes and Harm Reduction (2024)

When Scare Stories Backfire in Real Life

Misinformation isn’t just a theoretical problem – it can have real-world consequences. Public health advocates worry that these alarmist vaping headlines could actually do more harm than good.

"This is going to certainly cause many vapers to return to smoking and many smokers to cancel their plans to quit smoking via switching to vaping."

Health experts warn that misleading claims about vaping and smoking risk confusion among the public, potentially leading people to make worse health decisions.

Dr. Maxime Boidin’s Claim to Fame? A Publicity Stunt at the Cost of Public Health

In the world of scientific research, credibility is everything. The peer review process exists for a reason it ensures that findings are scrutinized, tested, and validated before being shared with the public. But what happens when a researcher skips all that in favor of a media spectacle? Well, you get something like this:

Dr. Maxime Boidin’s Twitter/X post proudly flaunting his Mirror coverage

Dr. Boidin, a senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, has been basking in the media attention surrounding his unpublished, unreviewed, and unverified vaping study. The Mirror, The Daily Mail, and other tabloids rushed to publish his sensational claims that vaping could be as dangerous—if not worse—than smoking, a statement completely unsupported by robust scientific evidence. And what did Dr. Boidin do? Did he caution against premature conclusions? Did he urge the media to wait for a peer-reviewed publication? Nope. He proudly shared the headlines on Twitter/X, as if he had just made a groundbreaking discovery rather than throwing fuel onto the fire of misinformation.

Science or Self-Promotion?

Let’s be honest—this isn’t about science. This is about attention. A desperate grab for headlines, prestige, and, let’s face it, likely funding. Academics today face immense pressure to demonstrate “impact” and secure grants, but most respectable researchers don’t stoop to this level. Instead of following proper scientific protocols, Boidin has taken the shortcut: skipping peer review, avoiding scrutiny, and going straight to clickbait hysteria.

Here’s the real problem: this isn’t just a harmless publicity stunt. It has real-life consequences.

• Smokers looking to quit may now hesitate to switch to vaping, thinking it’s just as bad as smoking.
• Current vapers who have successfully quit smoking might relapse, fearing they’ve simply swapped one deadly habit for another.
• Policymakers could be influenced by this misinformation, leading to stricter vaping regulations that drive people back to cigarettes.

Six million adults still smoke in the UK. What does Dr. Boidin think will happen to them when they read these reckless headlines? Does he care?

From Galileo to Clickbait Charlatan

Truly revolutionary scientists those who challenge existing paradigms do so with rigorous evidence and careful methodology, not flashy headlines in tabloids. Boidin, however, seems to fancy himself as a bold outsider exposing hidden dangers. But let’s be clear: this is not Galileo uncovering heliocentrism—this is a poorly-conceived, unverified claim being force-fed to the public with no scientific backing.

If Dr. Boidin had real confidence in his work, he would have published it in a peer-reviewed journal first. But he didn’t. Because he knows what real experts would do to it. Instead, he chose The Mirror over The Lancet, clicks over credibility, and hysteria over hard evidence.

Dr. Boidin, if this is your claim to fame, you should be ashamed of it. Your 15 minutes of notoriety may help your career in the short term, but in the long run, reckless science never holds up.

Enjoy the headlines while they last. The scientific community and public health deserve better. 🚬❌💨

A Call for Responsible Science Communication

The controversy around Dr. Boidin’s unpublished vaping study carries a clear lesson: scientists and journalists must communicate carefully and responsibly, especially on health issues.

When a study is still in progress or awaiting peer review, its findings should be treated as preliminary – not definitive truth. Jumping the gun with dramatic claims can mislead the public and undermine trust in science.

• Tobacco Tactics: E-Cigarettes and Harm Reduction
• Planet of the Vapes: False Claims About Vaping (2024)
• ASH UK: Media Myths About Vaping

Going forward, we need to distinguish clearly between smoking and vaping risks based on solid evidence, not hype. That means holding scientists to high standards – encouraging them to publish their data in journals and subject it to peer review, rather than shooting for quick publicity.

When it comes to something as life-changing as quitting smoking, people deserve facts, not fearmongering. Until solid proof is in hand (and reviewed by experts), let’s take sensational vaping headlines with a healthy dose of caution.